Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN - Ordinances - 366.01.Chapter 366. Town Board; Board of Audit. Town Board. | M. S. A. § 366.01 | MN ST § 366.01 | This Minnesota statute provides that the supervisors of each town constituting a town board are empowered to license and regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets when deemed to be in the public interest. | Statute |
| IA - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | I. C. A. § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B, 216.8C; 321.333 | IA ST § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B; 216.8C; 321.333 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service and assistance animal laws. | Statute |
| Beard v. State | 261 S.E.2d 404 (Ga.App., 1979) | 151 Ga.App. 724 (1979) |
Defendants were convicted of hunting with an unplugged pump shotgun and obstructing a law enforcement officer in the discharge of his official duties. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, the admission of evidence of defendants' prior run-ins with the law was not error, and the judge's instruction that admissions should be scanned with care, if jury found defendant had made an admission, was a correct statement of law and not, as contended, an expression of the judge's opinion. |
Case |
| Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning | 301 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2002) |
This case questions whether Arizona's 10% cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the state and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River substantially affects commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies to the regulation. The Court that Arizona's cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. The case was remanded to determine the extent of Arizona's legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. |
Case | |
| Laws Banning Cosmetics Testing on Animals | This map contains links to the twelve (12) states that ban cosmetics testing on animals as of 2024. These laws generally prohibit manufacturers from importing or selling cosmetic products where the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. These laws have some exceptions and typically include civil remedies for violation. | State map | ||
| In re: JOHN D. DAVENPORT, d/b/a KING ROYAL CIRCUS. | 57 Agric. Dec. 189 (U.S.D.A. May 18, 1998) | 1998 WL 300096 | Since 7 USCS § 2140 requires that exhibitors make their records identifying animals available for inspection at all reasonable times, it is not unreasonable to expect that records be with animals as they are transported | Case |
| MA - Leash - § 174B. Restraint of dogs in public highway rest areas; penalty | M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B | MA ST 140 § 174B | This Massachusetts law states that whoever is the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain said dog by a chain or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100. | Statute |
| US - Exotic Birds - Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act | 16 USC 4901 - 4916 | The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act addresses the population threat to non-indigenous wild birds due to the demand the from U.S. as the number one importer of exotic birds (e.g., the "pet" bird trade). Exceptions under the statute include qualified breeding facilities, scientific or zoological study, and people returning the U.S. who have been out of the country for more than a year (limited to two birds). | Statute | |
| Dorman v. Satti | 678 F.Supp. 375 (D.Conn.,1988) | The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt. | Case | |
| Friends of Animals v. Salazar | 670 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C., 2009) | 2009 WL 3953578 (D.D.C.) |
Friends of Animals (“FOA”) filed a Complaint against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the ESA and APA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. At issue is the petition FOA filed with the FWS in January 2008 to list thirteen species of foreign macaws, parrots and cockatoos as threatened or endangered due to the caged pet bird trade. In July 2009, FWS placed on public inspection at the Federal Register its 90-Day Finding for the Thirteen Species and also moved to dismiss FOA's lawsuit as moot. While the Court held that FOA's substantive claims must be dismissed, it considered FOA's argument that an award of fees and costs is appropriate here because its suit served as the “catalyst” for FWS's subsequent remedial actions. The Court allowed FOA to file a motion for fees and costs and defendants to respond to such motion. |
Case |